1
|
Niroomand‐Rad A, Chiu‐Tsao S, Grams MP, Lewis DF, Soares CG, Van Battum LJ, Das IJ, Trichter S, Kissick MW, Massillon‐JL G, Alvarez PE, Chan MF. Report of AAPM Task Group 235 Radiochromic Film Dosimetry: An Update to TG‐55. Med Phys 2020; 47:5986-6025. [DOI: 10.1002/mp.14497] [Citation(s) in RCA: 64] [Impact Index Per Article: 12.8] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 03/09/2020] [Revised: 09/15/2020] [Accepted: 09/17/2020] [Indexed: 12/12/2022] Open
Affiliation(s)
| | | | | | | | | | | | - Indra J. Das
- Radiation Oncology Northwestern University Memorial Hospital Chicago IL USA
| | - Samuel Trichter
- New York‐Presbyterian HospitalWeill Cornell Medical Center New York NY USA
| | | | - Guerda Massillon‐JL
- Instituto de Fisica Universidad Nacional Autonoma de Mexico Mexico City Mexico
| | - Paola E. Alvarez
- Imaging and Radiation Oncology Core MD Anderson Cancer Center Houston TX USA
| | - Maria F. Chan
- Memorial Sloan Kettering Cancer Center Basking Ridge NJ USA
| |
Collapse
|
2
|
Esposito M, Villaggi E, Bresciani S, Cilla S, Falco MD, Garibaldi C, Russo S, Talamonti C, Stasi M, Mancosu P. Estimating dose delivery accuracy in stereotactic body radiation therapy: A review of in-vivo measurement methods. Radiother Oncol 2020; 149:158-167. [PMID: 32416282 DOI: 10.1016/j.radonc.2020.05.014] [Citation(s) in RCA: 29] [Impact Index Per Article: 5.8] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Key Words] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 10/16/2019] [Revised: 05/08/2020] [Accepted: 05/10/2020] [Indexed: 12/25/2022]
Abstract
Stereotactic body radiation therapy (SBRT) has been recognized as a standard treatment option for many anatomical sites. Sophisticated radiation therapy techniques have been developed for carrying out these treatments and new quality assurance (QA) programs are therefore required to guarantee high geometrical and dosimetric accuracy. This paper focuses on recent advances on in-vivo measurements methods (IVM) for SBRT treatment. More specifically, all of the online QA methods for estimating the effective dose delivered to patients were compared. Determining the optimal IVM for performing SBRT treatments would reduce the risk of errors that could jeopardize treatment outcome. A total of 89 papers were included. The papers were subdivided into the following topics: point dosimeters (PD), transmission detectors (TD), log file analysis (LFA), electronic portal imaging device dosimetry (EPID), dose accumulation methods (DAM). The detectability capability of the main IVM detectors/devices were evaluated. All of the systems have some limitations: PD has no spatial data, EPID has limited sensitivity towards set-up errors and intra-fraction motion in some anatomical sites, TD is insensitive towards patient related errors, LFA is not an independent measure, DAMs are not always based on measures. In order to minimize errors in SBRT dose delivery, we recommend using synergic combinations of two or more of the systems described in our review: on-line tumor position and patient information should be combined with MLC position and linac output detection accuracy. In this way the effects of SBRT dose delivery errors will be reduced.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Marco Esposito
- S.C. Fisica Sanitaria Firenze-Empoli, Azienda Sanitaria USL Toscana Centro, Italy.
| | | | - Sara Bresciani
- Medical Physics, Candiolo Cancer Institute - FPO IRCCS, Turin, Italy
| | - Savino Cilla
- Medical Physics Unit, Gemelli Molise Hospital, Campobasso, Italy
| | - Maria Daniela Falco
- Department of Radiation Oncology "G. D'Annunzio", University of Chieti, SS. Annunziata Hospital, Chieti, Italy
| | - Cristina Garibaldi
- Radiation Research Unit, European Institute of Oncology IRCCS, Milan, Italy
| | - Serenella Russo
- S.C. Fisica Sanitaria Firenze-Empoli, Azienda Sanitaria USL Toscana Centro, Italy
| | - Cinzia Talamonti
- University of Florence, Dept Biomedical Experimental and Clinical Science, "Mario Serio", Medical Physics Unit, AOU Careggi, Florence, Italy
| | - Michele Stasi
- Medical Physics, Candiolo Cancer Institute - FPO IRCCS, Turin, Italy
| | - Pietro Mancosu
- Medical Physics Unit of Radiotherapy Dept., Humanitas Clinical and Research Hospital - IRCCS, Rozzano, Italy
| |
Collapse
|
3
|
Ferrer C, Huertas C, Plaza R, Aza Z, Corredoira E. Dosimetric effects of a repositioning head frame system and treatment planning system dose calculation accuracy. J Appl Clin Med Phys 2018; 19:124-132. [PMID: 30255659 PMCID: PMC6236818 DOI: 10.1002/acm2.12456] [Citation(s) in RCA: 0] [Impact Index Per Article: 0] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Track Full Text] [Download PDF] [Figures] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 07/02/2018] [Revised: 08/16/2018] [Accepted: 08/26/2018] [Indexed: 11/29/2022] Open
Abstract
This work aims to study the effect on surface dose and dose distribution caused by the Elekta Fraxion cranial immobilization system. The effect of Fraxion inclusion in Elekta Monaco treatment planning system and its calculation accuracy is also checked. To study the dose attenuation, a cylindrical phantom was located over the Elekta Fraxion with an IBA CC13 ionization chamber placed in the central insert at the linac isocenter. Dose measurements at multiple gantry angles were performed for three open fields, 10 × 10 cm, 5 × 5 cm and other smaller 2 × 2 cm. Measured doses were compared with the ones calculated by Monaco. Surface dose and dose distribution in the buildup region were measured placing several Gafchromic Films EBT3 at linac CAX between the slabs of a RW3 phantom located over Fraxion and read using FilmQA Pro software. Measures were performed for two open field sizes and results were compared with Monaco calculations. Measurements show a 1% attenuation for 180° gantry angle but it can be as high as 3.4% (5 × 5 open field) for 150°/210° gantry angle, as with these angles the beam goes through the Fraxion's headrest twice. If Fraxion is not included in the calculation Monaco calculation can result in a 3% difference between measured and calculated doses, while with Fraxion in the calculation, the maximum difference is 0.9%. Fraxion increases 3.7 times the surface dose, which can be calculated by Monaco with a difference lower than 2%. Monaco also calculated correctly the PDD for both open fields (2%) when Fraxion is included in the calculation. This work shows that the attenuation varies with gantry angle. The inclusion of Fraxion in Monaco improves the calculation from 3% difference to 1% in the worst case. Furthermore, the surface dose increment and the dose in the buildup region are correctly calculated.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Carlos Ferrer
- Department of Medical Physics and Radiation Protection; H.U. La Paz; Madrid Spain
| | - Concepción Huertas
- Department of Medical Physics and Radiation Protection; H.U. La Paz; Madrid Spain
| | - Rodrigo Plaza
- Department of Medical Physics and Radiation Protection; H.U. La Paz; Madrid Spain
| | - Zulima Aza
- Department of Medical Physics and Radiation Protection; H.U. La Paz; Madrid Spain
| | - Eva Corredoira
- Department of Medical Physics and Radiation Protection; H.U. La Paz; Madrid Spain
| |
Collapse
|